Post by: Paddy on October 19, 2007, 04:04:42 PM
If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat. Either way is not acceptable IMO.
Let's do something different this time. Your vote does count. Use it wisely.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 19, 2007, 07:01:31 PM
Nothing against Ron Paul, it's just the obvious response to the "lesser of two evils" line.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 19, 2007, 08:20:03 PM
Post by: vernal45 on October 19, 2007, 08:56:27 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 19, 2007, 11:58:07 PM
Post by: brer on October 20, 2007, 12:50:35 AM
Might be the GOP could start courting the voters that Ron is gathering up.
For too many years we have been voting against people. IE keeping dems out of the white house.
I think its time to actually vote for someone.
Post by: LadySmith on October 20, 2007, 01:49:15 AM
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 20, 2007, 03:32:11 AM
Quote
If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat.
The only way to break up the Republicrat-Democan partynot "parties," plural, but "party," singularis to turn around and walk away from them.
No more so-called "lesser of two evils" for me: all I ended up with was evil.
Post by: K Frame on October 20, 2007, 04:21:17 AM
We'll alert the media.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 20, 2007, 05:42:35 AM
Quote
If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat.
The only way to break up the Republicrat-Democan partynot "parties," plural, but "party," singularis to turn around and walk away from them.
No more so-called "lesser of two evils" for me: all I ended up with was evil.
Exactly. I'm done voting for Evil Lite.
Post by: vernal45 on October 20, 2007, 09:41:57 AM
Post by: Tallpine on October 20, 2007, 12:56:30 PM
Quote
Hillary in the white house, maybe for longer that 1 term. A lot of damage can be done to the 2A
And Rudy would be any better ....?
Post by: vernal45 on October 20, 2007, 06:20:21 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 20, 2007, 07:20:22 PM
Rudy would not be good at all, but better than Hillary.
At least if Hillary were elected, maybe the GOP
Post by: LAK on October 21, 2007, 12:47:15 AM
Let us not forget that it is the Electoral College that casts the deciding votes for the WH. However, governments rule on an essential measure of confidence among other things. If whoever sits in the WH next time around does so by the slimmest of margins - "republican" or "democrat" - they might not ride out any of the insanities the current and some past administrations have run ridden out.
The other issue is electronic voting; it is wide open to manipulation. We need an open transparent election with an open public record and paper trail.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that will break the stranglehold that the international oligarchy has on our country, and I will not be voting for any of their frontmen or women.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 21, 2007, 01:59:01 AM
Mainstream media has finally had to admit the fact that Ron Paul is a serious candidate.
I doubt that. More likely, they have gleefully reported the fact that he has a pretty significant following. If you think it pained them to acknowledge that, think again. Anything that indicates public (especially conservative) disapproval of the Iraq war is gold to the media.
Post by: Fly320s on October 21, 2007, 02:43:15 AM
Rudy would not be good at all, but better than Hillary.
So, losing your 2nd amendment rights, among others, is fine so long as you're screwed by the "right" party?
You don't mind that the US becomes more socialist, as long as the Republicans do it?
Gotcha.
Post by: Finch on October 21, 2007, 02:45:48 AM
A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats.
Right, because the Neo-Con republicans are doing a whole hell of a lot better? Go with Democrats we welcome Socialized
So you know what, I will vote for Ron Paul. I will go to my state's primary and be a delegate for him. I know the idea of currency actually having value is scary. Or the notion that you should only go to war when your country's defense actually requires it is unconceivable. Or how about the belief that people should be responsible for their own welfare and that governments purpose is extremely limited, that we don't need departments of education and other bloated bureaucracies because local governments can take care of those issues much more efficiently and with better representation.
Call him what ever you want, I could really care less. Call him crazy, because if Hillary and Rudy McRomney are the normal ones, I'll vote for the crazy man in a heartbeat.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 05:25:45 AM
A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats.
know the idea of currency actually having value is scary. Petrodollar. Our dollar is traded worldwide. Limiting it to a domestically held commodity is hopelessly naive. It might have worked back in the 19th century, not now, when all transactions are electronic.
Just like the rest of Ron Paul's foreign policy...total moonbat stuff from another century.
Quote
Or how about the belief that people should be responsible for their own welfare
Kind of ironic, considering a lot of his most devoted loony followers showing up here are the professional hippie protester types who are ON welfare, and have no problem with getting arrested for not having a license and registration because they declare it's their "right" to drive. Down with The Man, man! They just want pot decriminalized, since that's their religion.
Post by: GigaBuist on October 21, 2007, 05:24:16 PM
Quote
Like I said, its your vote. A "sending a message vote" will end up with Hillary in the white house, maybe for longer that 1 term.
I wasn't aware that Hillary Clinton was in the Republican primary.Now, if he does get the nomination will it still be throwing your vote away to vote for him in the general election? I thought we were supposed to just buck up and vote for the pro-gun Republican party candidate becuase, by God, anybody but Clinton!
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 05:26:10 PM
And the overwhelming boos from the audience, too...
Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!
Post by: GigaBuist on October 21, 2007, 05:46:54 PM
Quote
Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!
Well, y'all might want to take a look at what you're reps in the House are up to:Shea-Porter Votes to Begin Ending Iraq War, March 23, 2007. Title pretty much says it all.
Paul Hodes reacts to President Bush's Iraq War Speech, September 14, 2007:
Quote
In my judgment, we should immediately begin a strategic redeployment of our combat troops, and put in motion a diplomatic offensive to galvanize our allies and help stabilize the region. It is time to set our sights squarely on the threats posed by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is time for a foreign policy that will earn back the worlds respect and make our nation safer.
If folks from NH are pro-war they have a funny way of voting for it.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 05:50:00 PM
Sununu is a lot more in line with people I know.
Post by: GigaBuist on October 21, 2007, 06:24:55 PM
Since then she's reversed her position and now polls ahead of Sununu.
I wouldn't call saying "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war" delusional. There's some evidence to support that conclusion.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 21, 2007, 06:40:25 PM
At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?
Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.
Post by: Paddy on October 21, 2007, 06:46:27 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 21, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
Yeah yeah, vote for Ron Paul. Even though he's shrill and whiney. Even though his message falls somewhere between asinine and absurd. Even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Even though he'd make a terrible President.
At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?
Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.
At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?
Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.
This is the kind of arrogance that cost the Republicans both Houses of Congress in 2006, and will likely cost Republicans the Whitehouse in 2008. Every day the Bush Administration remains in office the Republican party loses more support.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 07:52:31 PM
I wouldn't call saying "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war" delusional. There's some evidence to support that conclusion.
Do you live here? No?
Well, funny thing...I do! And I talk to people, and see people, and overhear people! Wow! I live here, I think I know better than you what's going on here!
Post by: GigaBuist on October 21, 2007, 09:17:05 PM
Quote
I live here, I think I know better than you what's going on here!
Yes, I'm sure you do. However, elections are determined by how people vote, not by who people Manedwolf has talked to or how many pro-troop bumper stickers you see.
Look, you called Ron Paul delusional for suggesting that New Hampshire has a significant number of anti-war people in it. I pointed out that both of your current reps in congress are against the Iraq war in its current incarnation. You could have contested that point of data a number of ways. The simplest would have been to downplay the importance of the Iraq war in NH politics. That would have forced me off on a hunt to find pre-election press releases, or stories, on the candidates elected in 2006, showing that they were wearing the anti-war badge with honor.
Ron Paul is not delusional in thinking that his anti-war stance might gather him support in New Hampshire.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 09:43:02 PM
Post by: LAK on October 22, 2007, 03:47:03 AM
Quote
If you think it pained them to acknowledge that, think again. Anything that indicates public (especially conservative) disapproval of the Iraq war is gold to the media.
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years; the media that you refer to is owned, operated, and a tool of the international oligarchy of which I speak. One of the primary means of controlling large populations is called divide and conquer. Very old hat political psychology. The Hegelian dialectic; thesis versus antithesis - for controlled change.If you think that those who run CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the AP, NYT, LA Times etc are somehow opposed in ideology and agenda to those that run the WH - think again.
---------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: vernal45 on October 22, 2007, 03:55:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 22, 2007, 04:04:23 AM
Quote
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years; the media that you refer to is owned, operated, and a tool of the international oligarchy of which I speak.
Freemasons! Zionists! ILLUMINATI! *foam* *drool* ...
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 22, 2007, 08:54:30 AM
The British naturally became that policeman in the 19th c. due to their uncontested naval hegemony and their large system of colonies and semi-dependent state. The French helped as well, in Africa and South East Asia. To a much lesser extent, so did the Dutch and even the US (barbary pirates, later the Phillipines).
Notice that the Germans got smacked down WHEN they built a modern navy to contest the world policeman. But WW1 bled the policeman dry of money, people, and political will, setting it up for the knockout blow in WW2. So, a new policeman was necessary and the US was made to step in.
Now we are being forced to repeat the calculated mistakes of the British, bleeding ourselves dry while providing world policing from which we extract disproportionately less advantage. The obvious conclusion is that our gov is being manipulated by conscious or unwitting moles, to do the bidding of international forces who care little about our own well-being or security as a country.
In this new century, I would not be surprised if China takes over as the world policeman. Alternatively, unrestricted immigration in the US can prop us as the policeman for a few more decades, until the UN wankers finish building their global government.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 22, 2007, 01:11:52 PM
Quote
I've been thinking again for the last thirty-five years
Well, that's nice. Join the club.
None of your last post explains why it would so pain the media to report on the popularity of Ron Paul. They showed no such qualms about a conservative, pro-war Democrat named Jack Murtha, when he began denouncing the Iraq war in very strong terms. As I said, whatever their true goals may be, the media has a good track record for celebrating opposition to the Iraq war. Ron Paul is a welcome development.
Post by: Finch on October 22, 2007, 05:07:52 PM
The Debates last night were very telling about Mr. Paul. And a prime example why he wont get the nod or the big chair.
Oh, you mean the one in Florida where you had to apply to get tickets to the debate by filling out a political survey that measured your approval for the war in Iraq and Bush's moronic foreign policies and were then subsequently approved or denied based on those answers?
Nah, the audience wasn't rigged at all...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 22, 2007, 05:41:10 PM
The Debates last night were very telling about Mr. Paul. And a prime example why he wont get the nod or the big chair.
Oh, you mean the one in Florida where you had to apply to get tickets to the debate by filling out a political survey that measured your approval for the war in Iraq and Bush's moronic foreign policies and were then subsequently approved or denied based on those answers?
Nah, the audience wasn't rigged at all...
Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates? They won't even let Fox News into their debates. Not that it matters, particularly.
If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences. It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently. There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
Post by: LAK on October 23, 2007, 03:01:58 AM
I know; like their track record of reporting the invasion. Like the shots of Baghdad square during the toppling of Saddam's stature .. the cheering, thronging "crowd" .... that barely occupied enough ground to make any "positive" filming possible at all.
Like Chalabi's hired thugs "thronging" the streets of Baghdad, tearing up posters and other trappings .. the "V" signs .. the cheering and chanting .. as if even a fraction of the population of Baghdad was overjoyed at their "liberation" and "filled the streets".
How very co-operative of them. I suppose the "pro-war republicans" made some kind of "deal" with them; just for a day, maybe? Or; "it was a big mistake" on their part?
Divide and conquer.
Say; did someone mention secret societies? Oh yes.
And as a matter of fact so did George W Bush; the one he stated is, "so secret [he] can't talk about it". The one that his "arch ideological enemy" and "opposing candidate" and fraternal brother John Kerry responded about in like manner.
John F Kennedy spoke of secret societies as well. read;
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm
Or watch and listen;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR1yXR2E_M8
So a president - or candidate - can be a member of a secret society today, speak of it, and nonchalantly brush off any further explanation. And not surprizing that certain core economic, political and related agendas at home and overseas march on regardless of which "party" is in office.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 23, 2007, 04:03:32 AM
Quote
And as a matter of fact so did George W Bush; the one he stated is, "so secret [he] can't talk about it". The one that his "arch ideological enemy" and "opposing candidate" and fraternal brother John Kerry responded about in like manner.
You mean a fraternity for dorky rich kids at Yale?
tinfoil alert, tinfoil alert!
Post by: Paddy on October 23, 2007, 11:41:33 AM
Quote
So what?
Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates? They won't even let Fox News into their debates. Not that it matters, particularly.
If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences. It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently. There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates? They won't even let Fox News into their debates. Not that it matters, particularly.
If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences. It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently. There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
In typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Bushbot fashion, you didn't address the issue-that the audience was screened to include only pro-war, anti Paul bias. Instead, you introduced a complete red herring with a tirade about 'leftiists'. Nobody (except the above captioned L/H/B's) are buying this nonsense anymore. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to come up with something substantive.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 23, 2007, 12:55:59 PM
LAK, none of that is relevant to my point, either. The media spends a lot of time reporting on anti-war stalwarts like Sheehan, Murtha, etc. This is not controversial or deniable. So why would they be reluctant to acknowledge that Paul has a following?
If the media is such a tool of the globalists, why would they even report on Paul, anyway? You say they had to admit it. Why?
Post by: Patriot on October 23, 2007, 01:05:13 PM
The only tangible indication of "anti-Paul" bias would be opposition to positions [he espouses] as indicated by a survey response. Without getting into an argument over where the Republican party should be, I think it evident that Paul is more ideologically aligned with the Libertarian party. Clearly, he has a different stance on issues than the organizers of the Orlando debate (and a good deal of the Republican party, I might add). Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction. Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second. Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal. More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence. Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO. I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not). I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 23, 2007, 02:59:40 PM
Quote
So what?
Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates? They won't even let Fox News into their debates. Not that it matters, particularly.
If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences. It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently. There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
Do you think the Dems would allow a vocal Reaganite into their debates? They won't even let Fox News into their debates. Not that it matters, particularly.
If anything, it's a smart move to keep some control over these audiences. It prevents issues similar to what we had with Code Pink harassing Gen Petraeus recently. There are plenty of loony leftists that would love to infiltrate a Republican debate and cause trouble.
In typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Bushbot fashion, you didn't address the issue-that the audience was screened to include only pro-war, anti Paul bias. Instead, you introduced a complete red herring with a tirade about 'leftiists'. Nobody (except the above captioned L/H/B's) are buying this nonsense anymore. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to come up with something substantive.
The bottom line is that there's nothing improper about the Republican Party screening the audience at a Republican Party debate based on Republican Party ideals.
Whine about it all you like, see if anyone cares.
Post by: GigaBuist on October 23, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
Take for instance Thompson calling Guiliani out on his record on federally funded abortion and gun control. Guiliani didn't use the words abortion or gun control in his response. In a proper format the moderator would force him to answer the topic at hand, but they're not doing that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 23, 2007, 03:23:41 PM
Maybe you agree with all of that; I couldn't tell from your post.
Post by: Euclidean on October 23, 2007, 03:50:01 PM
And I urge all of you to do the same. Anyone who pledges to get rid of the income tax, abolish the IRS and do away with SS has my vote. Not that it will make any diff here in CA, the Dem will still get the electoral votes.
If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat. Either way is not acceptable IMO.
Let's do something different this time. Your vote does count. Use it wisely.
If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat. Either way is not acceptable IMO.
Let's do something different this time. Your vote does count. Use it wisely.
Riles and I agree on a presidential candidate. Hell has officially frozen over.
Oh, and let's see some of the comments.
Paul is the Republicans' counterpart to Kucinich.
Kucinich is not a pro RKBA candidate, has a completely different approach to abortion (he claims to support abortion but really wants the state to be able to make the decision for you), argues for more environmental regulations, amnesty for illegals, and other stances which could not be further from Ron Paul's talking points.
The merits of these issues or ideas is another thing entirely, but it suffices to say "counterpart" implies either that Kucinich is the evil Ron Paul doppelganger (probably what Manedwolf actually meant), or that they both share these views and one just happens to be a Republican and the other a Democrat. I'm sure it's the former and not the latter but I sincerely challenge that statement if that is not the case.
Like Ron Paul or hate him. Agree with him or not. He will not win, or even come close. A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats. Plain and simple. Its your vote, just dont want to hear you bitch about Hillary in the white house.
This is true because you say so then?
So the implication is voting for Paul means I am helping Hilldog. Let's see, if I vote for Paul and not Clinton, that's one for Paul, none for Clinton. Yeah, I don't follow the logic here.
And honestly, I'm hoping to send a message to the Republicans. The Democrats are a lost cause at this point.
Functionally, Ron Paul corresponds to Ralf Nader.
No, one's trying to run on the ticket of one of the only two socially acceptable political parties and the other is not.
If Ron ends up putting Hillary in the white house, so be it.
Might be the GOP could start courting the voters that Ron is gathering up.
For too many years we have been voting against people. IE keeping dems out of the white house.
I think its time to actually vote for someone.
Might be the GOP could start courting the voters that Ron is gathering up.
For too many years we have been voting against people. IE keeping dems out of the white house.
I think its time to actually vote for someone.
An excellent point. Just as the American Socialist party never actually won a presidential election and yet managed to get everything they wanted, that's exactly how advocates of limited government have to proceed.
Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!
Being the proud parent of a Marine and your stance on the war have exactly nothing to do with each other.
Yeah yeah, vote for Ron Paul. Even though he's shrill and whiney. Even though his message falls somewhere between asinine and absurd. Even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Even though he'd make a terrible President.
At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?
Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.
At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?
Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.
Let's see, an argument based on opinion, insults, with no substantive criticsm, and a vulgar reference to a sexual act to top it all off. All that complaining about complaining, and there's not even a suggestion to an alternative course of action.
Persuasive indeed. Such resplendent eloquence motivates me greatly to vote for Dr. Paul if these are the best arguments his critics can offer.
Post by: GigaBuist on October 23, 2007, 07:15:47 PM
Gigabu, I agree. But I don't think a real debate is a reasonable goal, given the number of participants and the time constraints. And given that the networks are trying to make some cash on the deal. An actual debate would get miserable ratings.
Maybe you agree with all of that; I couldn't tell from your post.
Maybe you agree with all of that; I couldn't tell from your post.
Sorry about the less-than-clear post. Somebody was harping at me about unloading the dishwasher halfway through and I lost my train of thought.
I had a longer post in response to this, but it's kind of off from the main thread so I'll keep it short.
I think it's possible for the RNC and DNC to start running real debates, but they'd have to do it away from the network news stations, perhaps on CSPAN, PBS, or even self publication via the web. However, they're never going to give up their 2 hour infomercials on the network news stations, so it matters not if they're actually possible. They have no incentive to do it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 23, 2007, 07:24:58 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 23, 2007, 08:59:39 PM
On a related note, I do not see it as a good sign that the Reps have 10 candidates. This means they cannot agree on much at all, or are too determined to pursue individual ambitions. There really should only be perhaps three candidates: a RINO, a traditional conservative, and a fringer libertarian type. The first and the last would essentially be the comic relief of the debates. Then it would also become possible to have a true debate without an active host, whose job should only be to call security if the candidates resort to fisticuffs.
Post by: LAK on October 24, 2007, 03:06:35 AM
Skull & Bones is somewhat more than some benign frat club or gathering of dorky rich kids.
Fistful
Quote
LAK, none of that is relevant to my point, either. The media spends a lot of time reporting on anti-war stalwarts like Sheehan, Murtha, etc. This is not controversial or deniable. So why would they be reluctant to acknowledge that Paul has a following?
If the media is such a tool of the globalists, why would they even report on Paul, anyway? You say they had to admit it. Why?
Not relevent? The "we-hate-republicans-bush-oppose-the-war" media allocated considerable time to people such as Guiliani when it came to 9/11, other issues concerning NY, and now his presidential hopes etc. They also dutifully gave much coverage to the "crimes" of Saddam Hussein, how he "lived a life of gross opulence and luxury while his people starved", pushed people into wood chippers, etc. I recall the fraudulent testimony of the Kuwaiti ambassador's dauhter before Congress that was the "final straw" running into Desert Storm; when it was uncovered as a fraud; not one major network dwelled on it for more than a trifling period of time, and many did not report it at all.If the media is such a tool of the globalists, why would they even report on Paul, anyway? You say they had to admit it. Why?
Up until recently hardly a peep has been seen or heard about Ron Paul unless it was one of their "political analysts" relegating him to the fringe or denigrating him.
I have posted, several times, a link to an online ABC news poll that flat out dropped his name from the list on the poll results page; while people like Giuliani scored miniscule ratings on that particular poll - as opposed to Ron Paul who was above eighty percent - were all listed They only rectified that after being deluged with complaints. Hardly the acts of a major media news player who would have no qualms about "anyone who opposes the war". Undeniable?
Let's talk undeniable. Flip back to the footage and shots of Baghdad square and Chalabi's hired thugs. It is undeniable that every major news peddler from CNN to the NYT only broadcast or published that footage and shots that excluded the the real truth. It could not have been any better edited to give a false impression than it was.
The media has steadfastly avoided mentioning Ron Paul if at all possible until recently. I was treated to a whole night of CNN about "some of the potential opposition to Hillary (etc) in the coming election" early this year. This same story, as CNN is fond of doing at night, was repeated every hour or less. People like Brownbeck - not considered a frontrunner from the start - had plenty of coverage all night long; Ron Paul? His name was not even mentioned once. And Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq was well-known long ago.
The reason why he is being allocated more airtime now is primarily because he has become too popular to ignore - and a great number of people have been active in calling the networks on this. Naturally they have switched gears to try and make him look as foolish as possible, with a not insignificant number of talkshow hosts etc taking pains to sideline or try and make him look as ridiculous as possible.
To read your attempt to explain away who controls the media is as absurd as trying to sustain the notion that global socialist Rupert Murdoch does not own and run FOX News.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 04:15:24 AM
Paul is the Republicans' counterpart to Kucinich.
Kucinich is not a pro RKBA candidate, has a completely different approach to abortion (he claims to support abortion but really wants the state to be able to make the decision for you), argues for more environmental regulations, amnesty for illegals, and other stances which could not be further from Ron Paul's talking points.
The merits of these issues or ideas is another thing entirely, but it suffices to say "counterpart" implies either that Kucinich is the evil Ron Paul doppelganger (probably what Manedwolf actually meant), or that they both share these views and one just happens to be a Republican and the other a Democrat. I'm sure it's the former and not the latter but I sincerely challenge that statement if that is not the case.
You're thinking too hard about it. What I meant was that they're both naive, gibbering loons who are completely disconnected from the economic and geopolitical realities of the world we live in.
One is the darling of drum-circle visualize-world-peace hippies smoking pot and holding hands, the other is the darling of anarchist hippies smoking pot, cradling their $89 SKS and babbling about freemason and zionist conspiracies and "Building 7!"
Post by: Euclidean on October 24, 2007, 04:33:12 AM
You're thinking too hard about it. What I meant was that they're both naive, gibbering loons who are completely disconnected from the economic and geopolitical realities of the world we live in.
Yet the other candidates are sane, wise, people we should put our trust in. You do realize that Ron Paul is running for president of the USA on planet Earth right, not this other planet where you imagine things to be so different that a RINO candidate looks attractive?
One is the darling of drum-circle visualize-world-peace hippies smoking pot and holding hands, the other is the darling of anarchist hippies smoking pot, cradling their $89 SKS and babbling about freemason and zionist conspiracies and "Building 7!"
Let's see, none of the RP supporters in my meetup group are anarchists, none are what I'd consider to be hippies at all (I personally despise damn dirty hippies), none of the RP supporters I've met actually smoke pot (I don't either), my father was a Mason as was my grandfather and I can assure you all there's nothing of much interest going on there, I have no idea what Building 7 is, and while I can see myself cradling an $89 SKS (because that would be a damn good deal in today's market), I prefer my franken AR.
In fact I think only six or seven of the twenty something people who organize local RP fundraisers lack a master's degree and an annual net income below $40,, of which I'm one. Most of these people wear a coat and tie to work and are actually rather pedestrian in their appearance and demeanor.
I don't know where you get these ridiculous ideas of who RP's supporters are Manedwolf. Everything you've ever said about them, I defy, as do all of the RP supporters I've ever met. I'm sure there's some kooks in the works, but there are going to be some for every candidate. I've heard people say they're voting for Fred Thompson because he was such a good DA on Law and Order, he'd be tough on crime. But you don't see me coming on here and making an asinine fool out of myself by painting all Thompson supporters as drooling TV fanboys.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 04:56:53 AM
I don't know where you get these ridiculous ideas of who RP's supporters are Manedwolf...
It has a meager kernel of truth: some "9/11 Truthers" also support Ron Paul. This is seized upon by folks who violently oppose Ron Paul, but can't actually refute his arguments--or who couldn't bear the contradiction of claiming to support the Framers' vision, while trashing the Constitution. So they smear RP, and all of his supporters, as "conspiracy kooks" and all manner of "loonies."
Interestingly, I've never seen it turned around the other way. Who do skinheads support? I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say Giuliani. So RP's supporters could start calling all of Giuliani's supporters "redneck KKK neonazi skinhead bastards," and it would be no more nor less factual than Maned's over-generalizations.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 05:08:30 AM
They're a bunch of hippie anarchist carpetbaggers of the professional unemployed protester sorts who call themselves "free staters", and if they're not parading around shouting about Ron Paul at any civic event or game, they're parading around in front of the jail protesting the repeated arrests of their members for declaring that they don't need a license or auto registration to drive.
Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them. Did you not see the last debate with all the shrill out-of-control flailing from him, or the resultant boos?
That is NOT presidential material!
And then there's the fact that his absolutely loony idea of how the world works would just get us run over and killed by expanding jihadists within one term. He has no concept of what this war involves, or the threat to all of Western civilization. At all. Totally naive moonbat in that regard.
Post by: Paddy on October 24, 2007, 05:59:46 AM
Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.
It's just shorthand for the kneejerk reactionaries who blindly support this administration's destructive policies
Quote
The only tangible indication of "anti-Paul" bias would be opposition to positions [he espouses] as indicated by a survey response.
Paul won the post debate phone poll done by Fox, by a clear margin no less
Quote
Without getting into an argument over where the Republican party should be, I think it evident that Paul is more ideologically aligned with the Libertarian party. Clearly, he has a different stance on issues than the organizers of the Orlando debate (and a good deal of the Republican party, I might add).
Yes, the Republican party (of which I've been a member since 1968) has long since abandoned any conservative principles whatsoever. They are now the party of big borrowing, big spending, intrusive liberty grabbing imperialism. They just lost both Houses of Congress in the last election, yet still can't read the writing on the wall, as they continue to lose support.
Quote
Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.
What you're saying here is that unless we're in lockstep with the Bush administration, we're not good Republicans. How arrogant.
Quote
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction. Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second. Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.
'Lacking in broader appeal'? Like Bush and his administration and his war?
Quote
More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence. Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO. I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not). I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.
So to you, it's about 'performance' rather than principles? Here's hoping the American people are not as vacuous.
Post by: Paddy on October 24, 2007, 06:10:10 AM
Quote
And then there's the fact that his absolutely loony idea of how the world works would just get us run over and killed by expanding jihadists within one term. He has no concept of what this war involves, or the threat to all of Western civilization. At all. Totally naive moonbat in that regard.
Apparently you haven't noticed, but the American people aren't buying this hysteria any longer. This country is overwhelmingly opposed to this war, and this administration's approval numbers are in the toilet.
I don't agree 100% with libertarian philosophy, either, but at least this guy wants to go in a different direction, and that's a good thing. If we keep voting for tweedle dee and tweedle dum, they'll both take us down the path to socialism, debt and destruction.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 06:22:01 AM
If we had put bin Laden's head on a pole in 2001, if we had gone into Iraq and done it RIGHT, kept the Iraqi Army in place to keep order, and sent more troops from the get-go, and let soldiers HAVE A WAR instead of making them take mincing PC-controlled steps to avoid offending people, (Sniper in a mosque minaret? Take the @#%! thing down!), they'd be 100% behind it.
People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.
And leftists keep confusing the two.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 06:35:27 AM
People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.
Except for the teensy detail that the Iraqi people are not our enemies--or at least weren't, until we started slaughtering them by the bushel. Launching this asinine invasion against a non-threat was the "mismanagement" in question. You're making it sound like we're all for slaughtering Iraqis; we just don't think Bush is doing it right.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 06:50:43 AM
until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.
Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 06:53:37 AM
Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them. Did you not see the last debate with all the shrill out-of-control flailing from him, or the resultant boos?
Are you referring to this debate?
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 06:56:53 AM
until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.
Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.
Oy. A question you already know the answer to. Between 30K and 1M Iraqis have been killed, depending whose numbers you take. If we take Bush's own number, 30K, you're suggesting that there were thirty thousand Al Qaeda members in Iraq? Obviously not; the vast majority of the Iraqis killed were in no way connected with terrorist activity against the United States. Which makes them innocent.
You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 07:33:30 AM
until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.
Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.
Oy. A question you already know the answer to. Between 30K and 1M Iraqis have been killed, depending whose numbers you take. If we take Bush's own number, 30K, you're suggesting that there were thirty thousand Al Qaeda members in Iraq? Obviously not; the vast majority of the Iraqis killed were in no way connected with terrorist activity against the United States. Which makes them innocent.
You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.
--Len.
Yes. BY TERRORISTS, nicely referred to as "insurgents".
Or are you saying that our troops are willingly slaughtering Iraqi civilians? Think carefully before you answer, Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 24, 2007, 08:08:13 AM
Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.
It's just shorthand for the kneejerk reactionaries who blindly support this administration's destructive policies
Maybe, but it comes across as name-calling. Are they 'kneejerk' because they support rather than oppose the president and 'blind' because they don't agree with you?
Quote
Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.
Quote
What you're saying here is that unless we're in lockstep with the Bush administration, we're not good Republicans. How arrogant.
No, that's how you interpret what I said. What I said was that it's entirely expected that that the organizers of a partisan debate are going to screen the audience in accordance with their own position, and anyone who pretends to be dismayed by this is kidding themselves. Draw what conclusions you will, but Paul is clearly at odds with quite a bit of party leadership. Party National Committees almost always back "their" president officially, however peeved they might be privately.
Quote
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction. Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second. Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.
Quote
'Lacking in broader appeal'? Like Bush and his administration and his war?
I'm really not a big fan of "scientific" polls but they at least partially preclude sampling bias. Ron Paul's numbers in 'Republican candidate' polls haven't been promising (not even double digits).
Quote
Quote
More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence. Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO. I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not). I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.
So to you, it's about 'performance' rather than principles? Here's hoping the American people are not as vacuous.
Read it again. I support or sympathize with many of Ron Paul's positions, but his persona leaves much to be desired. I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable. It isn't just about "star power" either. Watching him in the debates left me decidedly underwhelmed primarily because of his failure to effectively communicate his platform on any level.
Ha! You do realize that in the 2004 elections, which showed record numbers, only 60% of those eligible voted? 4 out of every 10 ELIGIBLE voters didn't even bother to vote. Among those who vote, informed voters are a huge minority. Time and time again people display their ignorance and misinformed state (street interviews, polls, conversation). Most people form their opinions of candidates based on what they hear from friends, colleagues, and media (the internet is growing in influence as well) + their party affiliation + what they see and hear of a candidate. Guess what people are evaluating in staged debates, video clips, and sound bytes? It isn't policy. Rather, it's all about pithiness, plausibility, posturing, and presentation (the 'P's are incidental). In a word, it's about 'performance.' Joe Public: "Well, uh, he sounds like someone I'd support" "How so?" "Well, he was really convincing in the debate last night, y'now, said some good things"
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 08:33:02 AM
You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.
I am not dodging anything, just pushing you to defuzz and dehype your position.
Terrorist damage and sectarian damage are NOT US collateral damage. US collateral damage is when one of our bombs or bullets strays and kills a civilian. Therefore the numbers that you are quoting are not our responsibility any more than we are responsible for 9/11.
Post by: Paddy on October 24, 2007, 09:01:11 AM
Quote
I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable.
And therein lies the problem. Screw principles, it's about 'electability' (power). Republicans have become Democrats. That's why I'm done with them. In the meantime, you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result.
Good luck with that.
Post by: Euclidean on October 24, 2007, 09:43:41 AM
No, the people are opposed to the mishandling of the war, as in the asinine strategies used when it started. They're opposed to dorks who never read Sun Tzu or Caesar, civilians running a war.
If we had put bin Laden's head on a pole in 2001, if we had gone into Iraq and done it RIGHT, kept the Iraqi Army in place to keep order, and sent more troops from the get-go, and let soldiers HAVE A WAR instead of making them take mincing PC-controlled steps to avoid offending people, (Sniper in a mosque minaret? Take the @#%! thing down!), they'd be 100% behind it.
People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.
And leftists keep confusing the two.
If we had put bin Laden's head on a pole in 2001, if we had gone into Iraq and done it RIGHT, kept the Iraqi Army in place to keep order, and sent more troops from the get-go, and let soldiers HAVE A WAR instead of making them take mincing PC-controlled steps to avoid offending people, (Sniper in a mosque minaret? Take the @#%! thing down!), they'd be 100% behind it.
People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.
And leftists keep confusing the two.
You know, I actually agree with that. But the problem is that the pooch has been screwed, and Iraq is now a Money Pit. It's not salvageable. I sincerely believe that any "success" in Iraq is directly attributable to the fact our military is competent even if their civilian commanders are not, but the whole thing has been so bungled it's beyond fixing.
It also doesn't make a damn bit of sense to be "over there" trying to kill those people when we have a huge open border allowing for those same people to waltz right in and form God knows how many sleeper cells. That's not alarmist paranoid conspiracy rhetoric either, they are already carrying out attacks (Beltway Sniper for a quick example). I am not being racist when I say this, but the cold hard fact is that an Arab does not look out of place in the middle of a crowd of Mexican and OTM illegals to most Americans. Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about real border security.
And realistically, the war is done, one way or the other. I realize there is bias in the media, but it's gotten to the point where most people want it to end, and they will vote Democrat to make it happen. Now, you can either concede the POTUS to the Democrats by insisting on a Republican candidate who will keep throwing money after an unsalvageable mess, or you can beat them to the punch and decide the question of the war before November 2008 ever gets here and make the election about the issues, a fight the Democrats will have a hard time winning.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 09:58:39 AM
Terrorist damage and sectarian damage are NOT US collateral damage. US collateral damage is when one of our bombs or bullets strays and kills a civilian. Therefore the numbers that you are quoting are not our responsibility any more than we are responsible for 9/11.
So you're claiming that of the 30,000 that Bush mentioned, US forces killed only a few hundred to a couple thousand--the maximum believable number of terrorists present in Iraq at the time of the invasion--and the rest were all killed by sectarian violence? Yep, there's a plausible theory.
Or are you saying that our troops are willingly slaughtering Iraqi civilians? Think carefully before you answer, Len.
Nice way to try and put words in my mouth. "Willingly"? As in, "Yo, d00d, lets go slaughter us some innocent ai-raqis!" With a few exceptions, that's obviously not the way it works, and you're only phrasing it that way in hopes that I'll bite, and tick off the veterans on the board. Puh-lease.
The vast majority of targets aren't "selected" in the first place by the soldier pulling the trigger. They're sent to certain coordinates with orders to fire a missile, or drop a payload, or "secure" an area, and they do what they're told. The majority of the dead weren't terrorists, but that isn't the fault of the soldiers simply following orders. It's the fault of the ones higher up the chain of command that use a cruise missile as a flyswatter.
But more importantly, it's the fault of the ones who ordered the invasion in the first place. It's understandable that soldiers will return fire when fired upon. But the ones firing upon them are, many of them, simply defending their homes from an invader. Having defined the invasion as part of a "war on terror," Iraqis defending their homes are (intentionally) confused with actual terrorists. To a soldier on the ground trying to survive, there is no important difference; either way, he must kill them or be killed by them. Those men, and the US soldiers killing and being killed by them, are all innocent victims of an invasion which is criminal on every level: as an aggressive war, it violates the Nuremberg criterion established by the US and allied powers; for the same reason, it is immoral and contrary to international law; as an undeclared war, it violates the Constitution; since it expends military resources on a non-threat, it violates US interests; in prosecuting the war, the Geneva conventions are routinely violated; etc.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 10:28:21 AM
As best it can be seen from this side of the ocean, most troops are engaged in police action patrolling transportation corridors, checking out reports for sighted terrorists or weapons caches, and answering calls from areas where sectarian violence bursts out. Most of our casualties are from IEDs, rather than gunfire exchange. The reported Iraqi casualties are routinely of two types:
1) Today in the city of Sandhill, 300 Iraqis died in violent clashes between shia and sunni over disputed territory
2) Today in the city of Sandhill, 150 Iraqis died of two large car bombs
I very much doubt that the leftist media would not immediately report on "Sgt Slaughter ordered the tank platoon to open direct fire with H.E. rounds at an Iraqi village to flush out two enemy combatants, resulting in 1,000 innocent Iraqi civilian casualties among unsuspecting bystanders."
To me it is extremely conspicuous that the doomsayers and bushhaters that foam at the mouth quoting astronomical figures have been completely incapable of coming up with a single major example of "war crimes" committed by our forces in the field. 650k? Where? How? By whom? When? Any mass graves?
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 11:00:01 AM
The above opinion is in no way substantiated by the press, the official line, or the informal reports from the ground. You are free to hold it, but if you try to sell it to others, you must provide proof.
Note, though, that I contentedly use the number that Bush officially copped to: 30,000. I'm positive that number is way low by now, but I have no idea what the right number is. I also avoid mentioning the 500K that Madeleine Albright copped to, since they died before Bush took office.
Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.
Quote
To me it is extremely conspicuous that the doomsayers and bushhaters that foam at the mouth quoting astronomical figures have been completely incapable of coming up with a single major example of "war crimes" committed by our forces in the field. 650k? Where? How? By whom? When? Any mass graves?
Which is precisely why I take the high-end estimates with salt. We can use the lowest estimates and still make the point: even Bush's number, which is the rock-bottom estimate, is at least an order of magnitude larger than the number of actual terrorists in Iraq.
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 24, 2007, 12:44:20 PM
Quote
I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable.
And therein lies the problem. Screw principles, it's about 'electability' (power). Republicans have become Democrats. That's why I'm done with them. In the meantime, you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result.
Good luck with that.
It's kind of funny, because I strongly suspected that you would fixate on this line.
Principles are dangerous things unchecked. What is a candidate? In this case, it is someone seeking to be elected to office. Therefore, I think a candidate should be evaluated based on a combination of their 'electability' and and their platform. Frankly, my evaluation of Ron Paul is that he has low electability in the primary election, [assuming he won the nomination] insufficient electability to win a national election, and that his platform is way too far out of line with the mainstream to be viable. All the crap that has been foisted on America can't be undone just like that. Look at Schwarzenegger, he tried taking on a whole bunch of things in the special election and got his butt handed to him. Targeted, incremental change is necessary (a process, not a fell swoop). Whether he is 'right' is largely irrelevant compared to whether he can win support and what he can accomplish. There are only two ways of accomplishing something worthwhile: in office or out of office. I strongly doubt he will ever be in office. If Paul loses, his sole accomplishment will be measured in how much he motivates either party to shape up. Suppose both Rudy (centrist) and Paul (FAR right) lose the Republican primary. Rudy is going to win more votes period. So when the Republicans lose the national election, who are they going to cater to more in the next election? The center or the far right? The largest position with the most secure votes. Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes. Unless Paul runs in the general election (either major party or third party) and gets a disproportionately large percentage of votes, nothing's going to change. If he gets 4% or more of the vote, a larger party might try and accommodate his platform. Otherwise, nada.
Stating you're done with Republicans while championing a nominally Republican candidate speaks volumes.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 01:13:18 PM
Principles are dangerous things unchecked.
Depends on the principle in question. Is the principle is a refusal to murder--where I said "murder," not "kill"--"dangerous" if left unchecked? Would you say, "He's dangerous, because he refuses to murder anyone regardless of the circumstances!" Or would you call someone else dangerous because he refuses to admit that sometimes rape is a pragmatic necessity?
Now the principle of assuming that all wild animals are harmless is indeed a dangerous one. But which of Ron Paul's principles would you liken to that, or consider "dangerous if left unchecked"?
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 24, 2007, 01:35:00 PM
Second, a lot of the 'crap that has been foisted on America' was so foisted during a Republican administration with a Republican congress. Why is there any reason to expect a continuing Republican majority will unfoist it?
Quote
Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes.
Again, it's this kind of arrogance that may very well result in a Dem POTUS andCongress come 2009. And if you don't think that's possible, I've got two words for you. Ross Perot. I experienced that arrogance personally in a phone call with the California Republican chairman just before the 2004 elections. I was expressing my concern regarding the President's and Congress' departure from the principle of big spending, intrusive government. His answer? "So, what are ya gonna do, vote for Kerry? You've got nowhere else to go".
People who have nowhere to go usually stay home. And I suspect there are many, many more like me who will do the same. And frankly, whatever Democrat is elected can't possibly do more damage than Bush has.
Quote
Stating you're done with Republicans while championing a nominally Republican candidate speaks volumes.
Ron Paul is only 'nominally Republican' in a world where George Bush is considered a conservative, and Rudy a centrist. These guys are to the left of JFK. That's the Republican party I'm done with. And I may have a lot of company.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 24, 2007, 01:43:18 PM
Quote
To read your attempt to explain away who controls the media....
What? I made no such attempt. LAK, I really haven't tried to take issue with your views about who controls the media, or whether the media is for or against the war. I'm not interested in that. Most of what you've posted, I have let go unopposed. I simply thought it was odd to claim that the media was somehow discomfited by having to report on Ron Paul.
You've mentioned some interesting facts about media coverage of Paul that helps me understand your point of view. Thank you. However, you still haven't explained why the media felt that it was now forced to report on him. Or, if Paul is a threat to them, why they would report anything positive about him under any circumstances.
If there's been any outburst of coverage on Ron Paul, my guess is that the media has figured out that he's a hot topic that will help them sell ad-space. But since I'm not a consumer of popular news outlets, I wouldn't know.
Post by: Soybomb on October 24, 2007, 01:59:17 PM
Harry Browne said "Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." Until more people start to feel that republicans and democrats are largely the same I think you're just going to get more of the same.
Post by: Tuco on October 24, 2007, 02:37:04 PM
Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them.
That is NOT presidential material!
Several around these parts (West Michigan) felt the same way about the banner waving sycophants attending dubya's 2004 visit / city shutdown.
Fact is, Manedwolf, if you move in next to the zoo, you're gonna smell elephants.
Steve
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 04:03:57 PM
Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.
What is your claim? That among the 30k, only a few are terrorists and the rest are innocent civilians killed by US troops? The reports that do perculate through the media indicate that a lot of Iraqis die by Iraqis in sectarian violence, which quickly fizzles out when US troops move in.
If anything, Bush's numbers roughly correspond to what has been in the media. If you sum up the reports, the declared casualties are less than 500 a month, 6k a year, or roughly 24k for all four years. Taking into account that CNN is not in every single little village, the casualties are probably a bit higher, so 30k is about right.
You have to ask yourself what you would rather have. Should the US troops just keep out each time sectarians start genociding each other and doing ethnic purges? What would the casualties be then? Would you blame the US troops for Iraqis killing Iraqis? Or you'd rather have Saddam gas and kill Iraqis?
What the Iraqis have been given by a turn of fate is, if anything, another lease on life by the US presence. Without it, they would descend in civil war and it would be THEN that the casualty numbers would truly explode. Saying "yeah, that's why Saddam should have been kept" is naive. Sooner or later, probably sooner due to advanced age, Saddam would have died of natural causes, and then his incompetent sons would have lost control, resulting in a civil war or Iranian invasion, or both. If anything, the Iraqis should be thankful to the US for the given chance at freedom and peaceful coexistence.
Post by: Patriot on October 24, 2007, 04:22:18 PM
First, Rudy is not 'centrist'. Rudy is a big city antigun liberal, and probably a big spender on the order of GWB (who has managed to outspend LBJ of 'Great Society' fame, btw).
Let me clarify: Rudy is relatively centrist given a full political spectrum (not just one party), particularly compared to Paul
Quote
Second, a lot of the 'crap that has been foisted on America' was so foisted during a Republican administration with a Republican congress. Why is there any reason to expect a continuing Republican majority will unfoist it?
Quote
Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes.
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans acted like idiots during much of their late congressional majority. Many started out with very different rhetoric. Don't be naive enough to blame it solely on one or both parties. Power corrupts plain and simple. That and voter apathy, as evidenced by the fact that far more value is placed on the occupant(s) of the Presidency than those of Congress. It is popular to fixate on presidents while ignoring Congress's role.
Quote
Again, it's this kind of arrogance that may very well result in a Dem POTUS andCongress come 2009. And if you don't think that's possible, I've got two words for you. Ross Perot. I experienced that arrogance personally in a phone call with the California Republican chairman just before the 2004 elections. I was expressing my concern regarding the President's and Congress' departure from the principle of big spending, intrusive government. His answer? "So, what are ya gonna do, vote for Kerry? You've got nowhere else to go".
People who have nowhere to go usually stay home. And I suspect there are many, many more like me who will do the same. And frankly, whatever Democrat is elected can't possibly do more damage than Bush has.
People who have nowhere to go usually stay home. And I suspect there are many, many more like me who will do the same. And frankly, whatever Democrat is elected can't possibly do more damage than Bush has.
I will print out and eat this post if Ron Paul gets 18% of the popular vote in a general election as a third party candidate. Why do you keep levying accusations of arrogance? Pragmatism, cynicism maybe but not arrogance. The chairman makes a reasonable - if tactless - point, particularly for the 2004 elections. Kerry would have been worse. He was not only pro-war, pro-spending, pro-big gov, but he also championed leftist social policies.
People who stay home are - if you'll excuse my bluntness, which is not personally-directed - idiots. Not voting does one thing: completely excludes you from the process. This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your concerns will be flouted. Conservatives excluding themselves tilts the pool toward big-gov proponents. If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years. Bush did four things I don't care for: deficit spending, miscalculation in foreign intervention, and screwing with civil liberties/checks and powers. The president in 2008 could easily trump all of these (you don't think Hillary can spend an extra $120 billion annually [a tiny fraction of the federal budget]? Her $5000/child alone is 17% of that, not to mention the indirect costs of damage to the economy). The Clintons' record on the other issues is less than stellar as well.
Paul doesn't seem electable. Despite highly motivated supporters, he consistently trails Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee in virtually all scientific polls by reputable, polling-specific organizations.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 05:01:57 PM
Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them.
That is NOT presidential material!
Several around these parts (West Michigan) felt the same way about the banner waving sycophants attending dubya's 2004 visit / city shutdown.
Fact is, Manedwolf, if you move in next to the zoo, you're gonna smell elephants.
Steve
I'm not complaining about the rest of the candidates or their supports. They're nearly invisible. It's the Paulians that are like some sort of freakish Hare Krishnas.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 05:21:06 PM
Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.
What is your claim? That among the 30k, only a few are terrorists and the rest are innocent civilians killed by US troops?
What is your counterclaim? Apparently, that the US troops killed only a few terrorists, and the rest of the 30K dead killed each other.
Quote
You have to ask yourself what you would rather have. Should the US troops just keep out each time sectarians start genociding each other and doing ethnic purges? What would the casualties be then? Would you blame the US troops for Iraqis killing Iraqis? Or you'd rather have Saddam gas and kill Iraqis?
Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on October 24, 2007, 05:42:02 PM
If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.
So if I don't like any of the candidates come Nov 2008, what do I do? Not voting is a vote...for none of the above.
Post by: Patriot on October 24, 2007, 06:01:12 PM
If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.
So if I don't like any of the candidates come Nov 2008, what do I do? Not voting is a vote...for none of the above.
That's not really the case. In philosophy, one can argue that, abstractly, not choosing is a choice (i.e. choosing to not choose). That doesn't follow when it comes to voting.
Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all). Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates. What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins. One of them is going to win, period. You might as well vote for the best available choice. Failing that, at least vote third party. Not voting at all is ridiculous.
All that pertains to the general election. I can't see why one wouldn't vote in the primary.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 08:00:20 PM
What is your counterclaim? Apparently, that the US troops killed only a few terrorists, and the rest of the 30K dead killed each other.
First off, I doubt that the terrorists are that few, unless you do not count local hirelings to whom terrorism is outsourced. But let's just say for argument that they account for 5k. Why is it so hard to believe that 25k killed one another? They seem dead set on doing so, whether by bullet or car bombs.
In any case, my interpretation is supported by what we observe in official, unofficial, and media reports. Yours is not. Again, you are free to believe what you wish, but you are the one that made the public claim about the US killing Iraqis "by the bushel". Either take it back or defend it.
Quote
Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.
Hitler pretended to be attacked by the Polish. Is your claim we pretended to be attacked on 9/11, so we could invade Iraq? Are you implying we are as bad as Hitler and subject to Nuremberg-like tragic guilt? I encourage you to drop the long-winded innuendos, state your points clearly, and defend them.
As far as how things are for the Iraqi, it appears you completely missed my point. Saddam was an temporary authoritarian freeze on an inevitable reckoning among groups that have hated one another for centuries. His natural death woud have plunged the country in uncontrollable chaos and civil war. The US is doing the Iraqis a big favor by offering them the opportunity to build a federal government that can help them live in peace. Without the US and the relative security it enforces, they stand no chance whatsoever to resolve differences peacefully and negotiate their way out of a bloody genocidal civil war. Our troops are the firefighters in an arsenal stacked with gunpowder.
Post by: LAK on October 25, 2007, 02:51:50 AM
Quote
Paul doesn't seem electable. Despite highly motivated supporters, he consistently trails Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee in virtually all scientific polls by reputable, polling-specific organizations.
Which scientific polls by which reputable, polling-specific organizations? Owned and run by whom?ABC is a major TV network, and they conducted a poll alright; and initially simply omitted Ron Paul from the webpage results even though he scored higher than all the others you mention - by an enormous margin.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 05:01:44 AM
In any case, my interpretation is supported by what we observe in official, unofficial, and media reports....
At the current level of vagueness, neither of us can claim statistical support for our position. I pointed out that at least 30K have died, and Al Qaeda members amount to a few hundred, or at most a few thousand people, leaving the rest unexplained so far. You point out that "lots" of people are killed in sectarian violence. Neither of those statements are anywhere near precise enough to start appealing to statistics.Quote
Yours is not. Again, you are free to believe what you wish, but you are the one that made the public claim about the US killing Iraqis "by the bushel". Either take it back or defend it.
While neither of us have offered genuine statistical proof, my observation is more credible than yours. At least I think so, and others probably do too. Some may think your view is more credible--namely, that the US army has killed at most a couple thousand Iraqis since 2003. More power to them. But you hardly have provided sufficient foundation to justify a demand for my retraction.Quote
Quote
Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.
Hitler pretended to be attacked by the Polish. Is your claim we pretended to be attacked on 9/11, so we could invade Iraq?
What does 9/11 have to do with the price of tea in China? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I've gone on record clearly stating that I'm not a 9/11 Truther: 9/11 happened. So did Pearl Harbor. And both had equally much to do with Iraq--namely, nothing whatsoever.
Quote
Are you implying we are as bad as Hitler and subject to Nuremberg-like tragic guilt?
You seem to have trouble reading clear and simple statements. WE created the Nuremberg doctrine. And we violated it. To violate the Nuremberg doctrine doesn't make one Hitler; it makes one a violator of the Nuremberg doctrine. You're doing your darndest to Godwin the thread, but it won't work.
Quote
As far as how things are for the Iraqi, it appears you completely missed my point. Saddam was an temporary authoritarian freeze on an inevitable reckoning among groups that have hated one another for centuries....
Sure. Fine. I only point out that one's chance of survival under Saddam was considerably higher than it is today. We're directly responsible for much of the death, and indirectly responsible for the rest by unleashing sectarian violence that was, as you admit, restrained before we launched an unconstitutional and illegal invasion.
Quote
His natural death woud have plunged the country in uncontrollable chaos and civil war...
Maybe. However it is not an admissible murder defense to say, "She would've died anyway."
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 25, 2007, 05:26:29 AM
Which scientific polls by which reputable, polling-specific organizations? Owned and run by whom?
ABC is a major TV network, and they conducted a poll alright; and initially simply omitted Ron Paul from the webpage results even though he scored higher than all the others you mention - by an enormous margin.
----------------------------------------
ABC is a major TV network, and they conducted a poll alright; and initially simply omitted Ron Paul from the webpage results even though he scored higher than all the others you mention - by an enormous margin.
----------------------------------------
How about all these polls which show him never at a level above 3%? You can say what you want about who owns and runs them but, historically, most of them have been pretty close to the mark in past elections.
Why all the sudden would they decide to diss one candidate which, if he won, would destroy their credibility as pollsters?
If you have information indicating they are truly dishonest (besides unscientific phone in or internet polls after a debate) please enlighten us. Something other than emotional rhetoric amounting to lalalalalalalalalalala!!!! I can't hear you!!!!
Post by: Paddy on October 25, 2007, 08:31:43 AM
Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.
Right. Let's go back and blame FDR. Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII. Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, the Republicans acted like idiots during much of their late congressional majority. Many started out with very
different rhetoric. Don't be naive enough to blame it solely on one or both parties. Power corrupts plain and simple.
different rhetoric. Don't be naive enough to blame it solely on one or both parties. Power corrupts plain and simple.
And yet you suggest we continue to vote for corruption rather than take a new direction. The only issue Republicans have left is fear. That's it, that's all they've got to sell, and I'm not buying.
Quote
That and voter apathy, as evidenced by the fact that far more value is placed on the occupant(s) of the Presidency than those of Congress. It is popular to fixate on presidents while ignoring Congress's role.
Yes, well thankfully Republicans lost both Houses of Congress last year depriving Bush of his sugar daddies.
Quote
I will print out and eat this post if Ron Paul gets 18% of the popular vote in a general election as a third party candidate.
He says he won't run as a third party candidate and the Republican party isn't smart enough to nominate him, so I think you're safe
Quote
Why do you keep levying accusations of arrogance? Pragmatism, cynicism maybe but not arrogance. The chairman makes a
reasonable - if tactless - point, particularly for the 2004 elections.
reasonable - if tactless - point, particularly for the 2004 elections.
This is not (or didn't used to be) a government of, for and by political parties, remember?
Quote
Kerry would have been worse. He was not only pro-war, pro-spending, pro-big gov, but he also championed leftist social policies.
An opinion many would reject. As odious as Kerry truly is, he could not have been anywhere near as destructive as Bush (who is also pro-war, pro-spending and pro-big gov btw). First, he wouldn't have enjoyed the rubber stamp Congess Bush had, giving him everything he wanted.
Second, he was critical of the Iraq war during the election campaign. He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'.
Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.
And it could go on and on.
Quote
People who stay home are - if you'll excuse my bluntness, which is not personally-directed - idiots. Not voting does one thing: completely
excludes you from the process. This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your
concerns will be flouted.
excludes you from the process. This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your
concerns will be flouted.
Wrong. Casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum is a choice. Voting third party or withholding my vote altogether are other choices. It's my vote to cast or withhold as I see fit. Congress was lost to the Democrats last time by that very mechanism. The purposeful withholding of votes is most assuredly an exercise of participatory power.
Quote
Conservatives excluding themselves tilts the pool toward big-gov proponents.
I voted for Bush twice and still got bigger government. That makes me part of the problem. If (when) Giuliani is nominated and you vote for him, you become part of the problem. Record borrowing from future generations to fund an imperialistic war is not a conservative value.
Quote
If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.
Wrong again. As I've already explained, the purposeful withholding of votes can drastically affect the outcome of an election. That's influence and active participation.
Quote
Bush did four things I don't care for: deficit spending, miscalculation in foreign intervention, and screwing with civil liberties/checks and powers. The president in 2008 could easily trump all of these (you don't think Hillary can spend an extra $120 billion annually [a tiny fraction of the federal budget]? Her $5000/child alone is 17% of that, not to mention the indirect costs of damage to the economy). The Clintons' record on the other issues is less than stellar as well.
'Bush is bad but the others are worse', is that your point? Sheesh. That's what I've been saying all along. NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE. That's why we need a new direction. Continuing to vote for 'Republicans' for no other reason than you think Dems are worse is idiocy IMO. And insanity can be described as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.
Just say no to idiocy and insanity.
Post by: roo_ster on October 25, 2007, 09:43:21 AM
If you are going to claim that our men in Iraq are killing noncombatants by the bushel, you need to produce some evidence that it is so. Evidence that is more substantive than your estimate of the number of terrorists & sectarian militiamen subtracted from some number between 30K & 1M.
Otherwise, it will be viewed as a libel perpetrated by a fool.
Man up and either produce some evidence that our men, wittingly or otherwise, killed noncombatants by the bushel or retract the accusation. Either path is honorable. What is not honorable is to let it lie there, unanswered, or to use oily, clintonian language to weasel out of your statements.
Post by: roo_ster on October 25, 2007, 09:50:14 AM
Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.
Right. Let's go back and blame FDR. Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII. Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 10:10:50 AM
Otherwise, it will be viewed as a libel perpetrated by a fool.
With or without evidence, it will be viewed that way by some, probably including you. Nice job sneaking a personal attack in through the back door, though.It's hard to get accurate information, notably because the administration resolutely refuses to supply any. Even the 30K number that leaked out of Bush's mouth was an accident; the official position was "we don't do body counts," and when put on the spot Bush revealed the number because he wasn't quick enough on his feat to reiterate the official line.
Quote
Man up and either produce some evidence that our men, wittingly or otherwise, killed noncombatants by the bushel or retract the accusation.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth, and convert my statement into a specific accusation against specific servicemen, is noted. It's cheesy and it won't work. I've already made my position on that clear:1) Missiles, sorties and similar forms of assault don't involve servicemen having the faintest idea who they're targeting. They're simply accepting coordinates from their superiors. All blame rests on those superiors.
2) Many deaths are in combat--and I never said "noncombatants," BTW, for that reason. An Iraqi firing on US troops in defense of self, property and loved ones, is acting reasonably. The US soldiers returning fire are also acting understandably. The fault for the confrontation lies entirely with those who ordered the operation, and ultimately with those who ordered the invasion.
3) Actual, intentional killing of non-combatants, is known to have happened, but there is no evidence that it's common. US soldiers are men like any other, and no more likely than anyone else to be a sadist or a murderer.
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 25, 2007, 12:34:52 PM
Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.
Right. Let's go back and blame FDR. Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII. Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.
Who said what about the Depression? I thought this was about government bloat. Outspending economic downturns has proven to be such a wonderful policy.
Quote
And yet you suggest we continue to vote for corruption rather than take a new direction. The only issue Republicans have left is fear. That's it, that's all they've got to sell, and I'm not buying.
Whose buying what Paul's selling? Not Congress. Govtrack says that his % of votes missed is poor in relation to peers (he misses significantly more than Pelosi and Kucinich for crying out loud, so much for the model Congressman).
Quote
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 343 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 338 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).
98.5% of the bills he sponsors don't even make it out of committee and NONE of them have been enacted. His congressional "effectiveness" says something about his position relative to the center (and probably about his ability to accomplish things as well). Even if he somehow ended up president, he's not accomplishing much of anything without Congress's backing [unless your boy decides that executive orders aren't really an abuse of constitutional power. After all, it's for a good cause....].
Quote
Yes, well thankfully Republicans lost both Houses of Congress last year depriving Bush of his sugar daddies.
You're either missing or willfully ignoring the fact that power corrupts. The small government, fiscally responsible "knight in shining armor" opposition party ends in up in power. Now what? They enact a few token reforms to demonstrate their effectiveness, then either become a do-nothing Congress who antagonize voters who want progress, or suddenly realize that power is cool, as pork, favors, and other parliamentary nonsense abounds. Or all of the above.
Quote
He says he won't run as a third party candidate and the Republican party isn't smart enough to nominate him, so I think you're safe
I know I'm safe. He lacks confidence and votes to run third party. My point was that he is no Perot.
Quote
This is not (or didn't used to be) a government of, for and by political parties, remember?
We have popularly elected representation (namely Congress). Parliaments have parties, period. Even "one party" states have factions within the state party.
Quote
An opinion many would reject. As odious as Kerry truly is, he could not have been anywhere near as destructive as Bush (who is also pro-war, pro-spending and pro-big gov btw). First, he wouldn't have enjoyed the rubber stamp Congess Bush had, giving him everything he wanted.
Second, he was critical of the Iraq war during the election campaign. He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'.
Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.
Second, he was critical of the Iraq war during the election campaign. He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'.
Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.
It is an opinion, you can agree or disagree. It happens to be an opinion many hold as well.
First, maybe.
Second, Kerry didn't even try to disguise the fact that he'd say anything to get elected. I don' care what you think about the origins of the war, withdrawing before Iraq is stabilized (or we are told to leave by the Iraqi government) would be a grossly irresponsible act.
Third, you actually believe in the veracity of Kerry's statements on that issue?
One word: 'credulity.' Quote from: Patriot
Not voting does one thing: completely excludes you from the process. This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your concerns will be flouted.
Quote
Wrong. Casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum is a choice. Voting third party or withholding my vote altogether are other choices. It's my vote to cast or withhold as I see fit. Congress was lost to the Democrats last time by that very mechanism. The purposeful withholding of votes is most assuredly an exercise of participatory power.
How clever. You should be a sophist. Did you miss or deliberately ignore what I said later on:
Quote from: Patriot
That's not really the case. In philosophy, one can argue that, abstractly, not choosing is a choice (i.e. choosing to not choose). That doesn't follow when it comes to voting.
Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all). Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates. What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins. One of them is going to win, period. You might as well vote for the best available choice. Failing that, at least vote third party. Not voting at all is ridiculous.
Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all). Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates. What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins. One of them is going to win, period. You might as well vote for the best available choice. Failing that, at least vote third party. Not voting at all is ridiculous.
You are fudging the line between making a choice and actually voting. You can CHOOSE to vote for a candidate and you can CHOOSE to not participate. You can only VOTE in the election. You cannot vote by not participating. Withholding a vote only has significance where a specific amount of votes are needed or your vote is required (say in a legislative assembly). That does not pertain here. Votes are cast. They are positive actions only. If a vote is not cast, it does not exist.
Voting is representative of a choice; it is also a specific form of influence. Not voting means you exercise none of that influence on who's elected. Additionally, since you did not participate in the election, the candidates are not beholden to you.
No one's disputing that you can do what you will with your ability to vote.
Your assertions about the 2006 elections are debatable, but for sake of argumentation, sure. What have the Dems accomplished that you are so proud of? They've continued in some form every one of the "Republican" policies you take such issue with, in addition to monkeying with taxes, social programs, and foreign policy.
Quote
Record borrowing from future generations to fund an imperialistic war is not a conservative value.
Quote
Imperialism was the imposition of colonial rule by European countries, especially the scramble for Africa, during the late nineteenth century. Many writers construed imperialism in terms of their understanding of the motivating forces. Among these, Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, and especially Lenin focused on economic factors, the rational pursuit of new markets and sources of raw materials. Lenin argued, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), that imperialism is an economic necessity of the industrialized capitalist economies, seeking to offset the declining tendency of the rate of profit, by exporting capital. It is the monopoly stage of capitalism.
NOPE.
Quote
Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion.
NOPE
Quote
Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social structures,
NOPE
Quote
not the economic interests of nation or class. Alternative accounts view imperialism as: an outgrowth of popular nationalism; a device to underwrite the welfare state, which pacifies the working class (notably in Britain); personal adventurism; an application of social Darwinism to struggles between races; a civilizing mission; and as simply one dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The latter implies that socialist states too were prone to be imperialistic.
Nope, nope, nope.
Quote
Wrong again. As I've already explained, the purposeful withholding of votes can drastically affect the outcome of an election. That's influence and active participation.
War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge. Slavery is freedom. And non-participation is participation, apparently.
Even if not voting affected the outcome of the election, I doubt it was in a positive manner. Does this follow: (a) You didn't vote for the GOP because you don't approve of them. (b) You didn't vote for the Dems, ditto. (c) You didn't vote for a 3rd party for some reason known best to yourself. (d) You wanted change and the GOP were in charge. (e) Therefore, you wanted them to lose. (f) You don't agree with Dems, so you don't vote for them either. (g) Therefore, you sit out of the election because you want the GOP to lose. (h) That means, in a two-party system, the Dems will win. (i) Therefore, you want you actions to help the Dems to win. (j) However, you don't vote for the Dems because you don't agree with them, yet you tacitly understand that your [in]action's likely result is in putting the Dems in power. (k) Therefore, a reasonable observer might conclude that you acted in a specific way with specific goals, but did so in an effort to avoid direct culpability. (l) You attempt to avoid direct participation because the Dems don't meet your standards either. (m) Therefore you try to avoid acknowledging that your choice is inconsistent with your principles (n) Therefore you did precisely what you condemn in others, supporting the lesser of two evils.
There is no way that could be termed active. It is a passive attempt predicated on the assumption that willful passivity involves less culpability than willful action despite being directed toward the same end.
Quote
'Bush is bad but the others are worse', is that your point? Sheesh. That's what I've been saying all along. NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE. That's why we need a new direction. Continuing to vote for 'Republicans' for no other reason than you think Dems are worse is idiocy IMO. And insanity can be described as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.
Just say no to idiocy and insanity.
Just say no to idiocy and insanity.
New direction, sure. We just differ on what precisely that direction should take and how to best accomplish it.
Continuing to passively stick your head in the sand in midterm elections could be termed much the same, with the added issue of beating around the bush (no pun intended).
That's not insanity, that's chaos theory
I've humored you by going relatively far afield, but I still think Ron Paul is a minimally viable candidate. Go marshal up support. Prove me wrong. In the meantime, I'll back someone who actually has a chance. That 'lesser of two evils' argument is only one perspective. The other is that 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough.'
Assuming that anyone not voting for Paul is voting for Rudy is, well, *what was the term in that other Pres discussion for people who only think in good and bad with nothing in between*
Post by: roo_ster on October 25, 2007, 12:42:03 PM
I think we have your measure.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 12:55:00 PM
In other words, you have no evidence, but are unwilling to retract your allegation. I think we have your measure.
Are you referring to the allegation that you persist in mis-characterizing? Anyway, your reply was just an excuse to sneak an extra ad hominem in, in case your previous ones weren't sufficient. I won't play that game, so if you try again I'll let you have the last word. It would be classier of you, though, if you didn't.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 25, 2007, 12:55:48 PM
"Len is a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester." And when you say "CAnn, either show evidence or retract your accusation.", I say "Well, in the absence of further evidence, my interpretation of the facts is as good as yours. So there. Prove you are not a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester, otherwise my statement stays."
You might want to check out libel/slander laws that are already on the books.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 25, 2007, 01:08:25 PM
Anyway, your reply was just an excuse to sneak an extra ad hominem in, in case your previous ones weren't sufficient.
Oh, quit whining.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 01:30:21 PM
You might want to check out libel/slander laws that are already on the books.
That's an absurd statement, I'm afraid. First, malice must be proven to establish libel. Second, comment on public figures is also specifically protected as free speech and, in general, not subject to prosecution as libel. Third, political speech is specifically protected. Since all three protections apply in this case, and you should be quite familiar with them if you've read what you're recommending I read, your statement is silly.
Quote
Prove you are not a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester, otherwise my statement stays."
No. For starters, I not only state my conclusion but the foundation on which it rests. In particular I discuss the difficulty of specific statistics, because the only one with access to detailed intelligence refuses to reveal any numbers. For a typical example, read this press briefing and search on "how many". It's not mysterious why the number of dead, let alone a breakdown by cause of death, is mostly speculative. Therefore discussion must, of necessity, be general and imprecise.
There is also the difficulty that you keep reinterpreting the claim. Not all "insurgents" are "terrorists," for starters. An ordinary, law-abiding Iraqi is as justified in defending his country as we would be over here, were the tables turned. Some "insurgents" are, in particular, "innocent." The soldiers who shoot (back) at them are of course following orders and acting in self-defense, so the other side of the coin is important as well: killing an "innocent" does not automatically make one a "murderer." Your casual interchanging of "noncombatants" with "innocents," and "insurgent" with "terrorist," and killing of a non-terrorist with premeditated murder, renders the whole discussion hopelessly confusing.
It's relatively undisputed that there are about 20,000 "insurgents" in Iraq. If we assumed that all of them were Al Qaeda operatives, and that every single one of them is among the 30,000 dead that Bush confessed to, we'd still by left with 10,000 innocent deaths by the smallest body count available today--and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.
The above source argues persuasively that at most a thousand or so are in fact terrorists, leaving well over 15,000 non-terrorist "insurgents." They weren't all killed, of course, so more than 10,000 of the 30,000 are clearly non-terrorist non-insurgents. So we have "more than 10,000 innocents," and "more than 25,000 non-terrorists," based on reasonable numbers, recalling that the administration itself is withholding any numbers that it knows.
That's a far cry from purely unsubstantiated allegations like, "Cannoneer beats his wife."
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 25, 2007, 01:47:35 PM
and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.
This is what your argument boils down to. There are lots of Iraqi dead, and you assume that it must be entirely Bush's fault. You use false premises (the war is illegal, Bush created the sectarian violence, etc) and faulty logic (post hoc, cum hoc, among others) to back it up. Sorry, that sort of argument doesn't cut it around here. Give us sound, logical reasoning as to why Bush is responsible for those 30,000 deaths. Show us evidence. Find some proof. We're looking for some solid critical thinking, not the same old tired platitudes.
Post by: Patriot on October 25, 2007, 01:50:33 PM
regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.
Illegal? According to whom? Congress explicitly authorized the use of force in the 'Iraq War Resolution.'
Read up on your history. Sectarian violence in Iraq is hardly a new problem. If Hussein's regime "stabilized" the situation, it did so by brutality. Even so, that regime mounted violent campaigns against the Kurds in Iraq and expelled thousands of Shiites during the Iraq-Iran war.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 02:06:07 PM
and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.
This is what your argument boils down to. There are lots of Iraqi dead, and you assume that it must be entirely Bush's fault. You use false premises (the war is illegal, Bush created the sectarian violence, etc)...
You and Patriot make identical points, so I'll answer both at once. It's not open for debate that the war was illegal. Congress did not declare war. End of discussion. I suggest a reread of section 8 of the Constitution. And yes, I realize that it's just a @#$@#$ piece of paper. But to some of us, it means something. At the very least, it means what it says.
The rest follows from there. All of the consequences of the original crime are on the head of the criminal. That includes not only the administration, but Congress who failed to impeach the president for waging undeclared war. I don't recall ever saying something as simplistic as, "It's Bush's fault."
Indeed, Congress is doubly contemptible. That passed a non-declaration of war so they could claim they were "strong on national defense," but refrained from declaring war so they could blame the outcome on Bush. If they suddenly had an attack of morality, they would impeach Bush--and then have themselves shot for treason.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 25, 2007, 02:12:22 PM
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 02:16:38 PM
Thanks for hijacking this thread with your anarchist bullshit, Len.
AFAICT, we agree about the Iraq war. Crazy is not knowing who your friends are.
(For the record, by the way, I have stuck strictly with Constitutional bullshit. Not a trace of anarchism in this thread.)
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 25, 2007, 02:23:57 PM
You and Patriot make identical points, so I'll answer both at once. It's not open for debate that the war was illegal. Congress did not declare war. End of discussion. I suggest a reread of section 8 of the Constitution. And yes, I realize that it's just a @#$@#$ piece of paper. But to some of us, it means something. At the very least, it means what it says.
The rest follows from there. All of the consequences of the original crime are on the head of the criminal. That includes not only the administration, but Congress who failed to impeach the president for waging undeclared war. I don't recall ever saying something as simplistic as, "It's Bush's fault."
Indeed, Congress is doubly contemptible. That passed a non-declaration of war so they could claim they were "strong on national defense," but refrained from declaring war so they could blame the outcome on Bush. If they suddenly had an attack of morality, they would impeach Bush--and then have themselves shot for treason.
--Len.
The rest follows from there. All of the consequences of the original crime are on the head of the criminal. That includes not only the administration, but Congress who failed to impeach the president for waging undeclared war. I don't recall ever saying something as simplistic as, "It's Bush's fault."
Indeed, Congress is doubly contemptible. That passed a non-declaration of war so they could claim they were "strong on national defense," but refrained from declaring war so they could blame the outcome on Bush. If they suddenly had an attack of morality, they would impeach Bush--and then have themselves shot for treason.
--Len.
Making blanket statements like 'it's not open for debate that the war is illegal' only undermines your argument. Heard of Doe v Bush? Or have you decided that this part of the Constitution isn't relevant:
Quote
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
Skirting that issue for the moment,
Quote
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[...]
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
[...]
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Nowhere does it say that Congress must declare war in order for U.S. military action to take place. What it does say is that Congress has the power to declare ware as well as various powers concerning the armed forces. If Bush unilaterally declared war, that might be one thing. Congress, however, authorized him to take action.
Maybe you are right about the war being illegal. That is a question for constitutional scholars and the courts. It pertains to constitutional law and theory (i.e. interpreting the constitution). Until then, making statements like that is just silly.
Post by: Paddy on October 25, 2007, 02:30:48 PM
Quote
AFAICT, we agree about the Iraq war.
AFAICT the only agreement we've got is that we're both opposed to it. My reasons, however, are based in reality.
Quote
Crazy is not knowing who your friends are.
I'll pass, thanks all the same.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 02:31:55 PM
...have you decided that this part of the Constitution isn't relevant:
Quote
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
I'm not sure what you think the relevance is. It appears that you're suggesting that the SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the Constitution, rather than applying it. If so, I'll point out that it says no such thing there. It's true that past Supreme Courts have interpreted the article as empowering them to interpret the Constitution, but down that road lies infinite recursion.
Quote
Maybe you are right about the war being illegal. That is a question for constitutional scholars and the courts....
The same infinite recursion. Past courts have taken a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and their black robes don't change the fact that they're wrong. Odds are 50/50 that you agree with that statement, as pertains to Roe v. Wade. But it doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to read the primary documents and learn that the framers were strict constructionists, and that they intentionally vested war-making power in Congress and not the executive. It isn't a question for highfalutin' legal scholars. The question for highfalutin' legal scholars is whether presidents will get away with violating the Constitution in this way, and history since WWII demonstrates that for now at least, the answer is YES.
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 25, 2007, 03:24:21 PM
...have you decided that this part of the Constitution isn't relevant:
Quote
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party
I'm not sure what you think the relevance is. It appears that you're suggesting that the SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the Constitution, rather than applying it. If so, I'll point out that it says no such thing there. It's true that past Supreme Courts have interpreted the article as empowering them to interpret the Constitution, but down that road lies infinite recursion.
Judicial review has been around since Marbury vs Madison (1803). Unless you think the Courts should rely on the another branch to enforce their interpretation, then they must have limited powers, namely, to strike down or uphold disputed legislation/actions. I think this is a reasonable inference.
Quote
The same infinite recursion. Past courts have taken a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and their black robes don't change the fact that they're wrong. Odds are 50/50 that you agree with that statement, as pertains to Roe v. Wade. But it doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to read the primary documents and learn that the framers were strict constructionists, and that they intentionally vested war-making power in Congress and not the executive. It isn't a question for highfalutin' legal scholars. The question for highfalutin' legal scholars is whether presidents will get away with violating the Constitution in this way, and history since WWII demonstrates that for now at least, the answer is YES.
--Len.
--Len.
That is opinion. You may be of the mind that your personal opinion is indisputable, but that is doesn't make it so.
If, as you succinctly put it, "war-making power is vested in Congress," then that would be problematic if the President made war without Congress's express approval. Since, however, that had been given in the 'Iraq War Resolution,' what does not pass muster?
Quote
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Congress passed a law authorizing the President to take military action. Since the Constitution does not prescribe a specific protocol for Congress's declaring war, I see no reason (aside from custom) that their authorizing the president to take military action doesn't constitute a de facto declaration of war. Note that formal declarations of war were just that, FORMal (i.e. a customary protocol). 'Declare' just means to make known, with connotations of formality, officiousness, or clarity. Resolutions authorizing force are an understood format because - as you pointed out, it has been done for quite some time. It is official, because Congress passed a resolution exercising its constitutional power. It has clarity because it is clear to anyone what's going on. If you are familiar with the Constitutional Convention's consideration of whether to word it "make war" or "declare war," it becomes obvious that declare war refers as much to commencing war as to a formal declaration. Furthermore, their eventual choice of "declare" suggests that they wanted military action to be specifically authorized, which is the whole point of the Iraq War Resolution.
Post by: Len Budney on October 25, 2007, 05:10:31 PM
Judicial review has been around since Marbury vs Madison (1803). Unless you think the Courts should rely on the another branch to enforce their interpretation, then they must have limited powers, namely, to strike down or uphold disputed legislation/actions. I think this is a reasonable inference.
Right. If that's what you mean, then we're on the same page. The courts can strike down unconstitutional laws, but they can't reinterpret the Constitution so that "unconstitutional" means what they want it to mean. They're bound by the framers' intent, which is well documented. Many think the SCOTUS has a much broader role--namely, "interpreting" the Constitution as a "living document."
Quote
That is opinion. You may be of the mind that your personal opinion is indisputable, but that is doesn't make it so.
True; the fact that it's my opinion doesn't make it so. But in this case, the fact that it's so does make it so. The power to declare war rests with Congress alone.
Quote
If, as you succinctly put it, "war-making power is vested in Congress," then that would be problematic if the President made war without Congress's express approval. Since, however, that had been given in the 'Iraq War Resolution,' what does not pass muster?
You are trying to interpret their "authorization" as a declaration of war. This too is not a subjective matter: it simply isn't one.
Quote
Furthermore, their eventual choice of "declare" suggests that they wanted military action to be specifically authorized, which is the whole point of the Iraq War Resolution.
It was not a declaration of a state of war. It was par for the course though: another example of fence-straddling that enabled the shameless congresscritters to both take credit, and divert blame, for the war. Coming out firmly for and against the war preserves their ability to pander to all sides. Which is precisely why the debacle in Iraq is not solely Bush's fault. For their own purposes, they gave him a legal fig-leaf, while at the same time purposely withholding a genuine declaration of war.
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on October 25, 2007, 05:21:24 PM
True; the fact that it's my opinion doesn't make it so. But in this case, the fact that it's so does make it so. The power to declare war rests with Congress alone.
That is one of their constitutional powers. No one infringed on it. They approved military action. And the probem is...?
Quote
You are trying to interpret their "authorization" as a declaration of war. This too is not a subjective matter: it simply isn't one.
Provide a legally pertinent (statutory or case law) definition of what "declare war" means and entails. Otherwise, it is indeed subject to interpretation.
Post by: K Frame on October 25, 2007, 05:31:08 PM
Everyone take a deep breath.
You're like a session of New York's colonial congress...
They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done.